if a person was charged with committing a crime and then was acquitted, doesn't it make sense that now, with DNA and other advanced forensic techniques that can prove that he really did commit the crime, he should be retried? this would require a change in the constitution.
we are afforded protection from "double jeopardy," which is having to stand trial more than one time for one offense. but an amendment to the constitution is so very hard to pass!!!
my logic tells me that if a convict can later prove, via such advanced forensic techniques, his innocence and therefore be set free (or retried so that the real culprit pays for the crime, therefore being set free), then:
it only follows that if DNA identification or any other proven modern technology can show that the so-called innocent REALLY AND IN FACT committed the crime that he was acquitted of not having done, that he should stand trial again.
kindly support your opinions. thanks!
2007-02-07
17:23:35
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Louiegirl_Chicago
5